rejoinder to santa christ

It is so much traditonally pompously easier to ad hominemistically make it all about the person – to prejudicially delude that the “brash” newcomer’s “intent” was to “insult” the forum’s “sacred” society :unamused: – than for even reactively segmented athiests to deal philosophically with the meaning of the reality the “horrific and censorable” efficient two-word phrase strikingly presents :astonished: .

Maturity is the ability to situationally recognize that function and intent are not one and the same, and such maturity is really for the best here on a philosophy board, gentlemen … something it appears a number of we ladies have previously learned. :wink:

I challenge you to check your “paternalism” at the door. :blush:

I most certainly prefer not to be unjustly battered with it merely because I’m sharp and clever. :sunglasses:

Sharp and clever. Yeah, Santa Christ was a gem of wit.

Hey, did you just call me “reactively segmented”?

I am offended by that.

Or, I’m sure I would be, if I had any idea what it meant.

Let us remember, that such things are not demerit towards higher beings, but instead, are simply manifestations of degeneration and human cruelty.

All forms of hate towards nature are offensive.

And those who wear a Viagra patch on their ego will find themselves constantly bumping into something “offendingly” painful. :laughing:

Better is to keep within one’s own space, thus allowing others to speak freely within theirs. :sunglasses:

Okay, let’s assume this for a moment: Perfection according to whom and for what circumstance? From the standpoint of the universe, decay and order and decay IS perfection. It is perfect in that it is what occurs.

Well, I would think the intent would influence the purpose. After all, if I’m trying to build a house that will fall down in five years, and it makes it to six, well, it didn’t work quite “perfectally”.

If something does what I want it to do, it does so perfectally, if we are going to carry this philosophy a little further out.

I’m not saying they are the “same”. I’m saying that we cannot say “The boulder is not alive” and KNOW it. It’s rather like a virus. Is it life? Is it not? What is it? A boulder is not much different in the sense that it may not meet our definition of alive, but we cannot say that it therefore is not alive. That’s my point.

Well see, this is the problem…“bad eyesight” is perfect in its “badness”. Perfection is not related to only “that which is good”. Something can be perfectally “bad” by existing in such a way as to bring about an outcome that you don’t really want…the more outcomes you don’t want, the greater the perfection of the bad thing.

I was simply demonstrating by holding them true for a moment that this system is capable of contradiction, and that you PERSONALLY decide in such a system which way it is you wish to frame it absolutely.

But if that is true, and you base this whole thing on Christianity, then it self-destructs.

If you reduce something, I’m not sure you are still dealing with the something anymore.

Well, the problem is that when you “zero in” you are no longer dealing with “joe”. He is no longer “perfectally joe”. He’s “bits and pieces which are questionably joe”.

I was attempting to point out that law, by virtue of assigning a “guilty” label or “not guilty label” oversimplifies things greatly. The legal system is a disaster I think in large part because of these labels.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Actually, I think we ARE investigating. I’m not trying to disprove your statements per se. I simply view them as “nice ideas that don’t hold up under certain circumstances”. The objections I’ve raised are not because I’m interested in disproving, on the contrary, if you had compelling solutions to these objections I’d be the first on board. The problem is, I suspect, there are not cogent solutions to many of these objections. Perhaps for you, the ends of your belief justify the means of believing these questions are answered satisfactorilly. That’s well and good. There is a certain narcotic euphoria that comes from feeling as though that the questions are all addressed and boxed up. However, what I’m seeing so far shows me that your boxes, while perhaps sufficient for you, are not quite sufficient for me. One thing I’d demand from absolute truth is that it be absolutely true at a bare minimum. If I had a base to which I credit absolute truth as a crown jewel whereupon I had constructed an edifice to house it, I wouldn’t want the ability for a potentially devastating contradiction to live there and ruin my construction and maul my base and allow my jewel to be stolen.

It does not seem to be the case that this particularly bothers you, but it quite simply perplexes me.

Well thanks. I appreciate that. Civil discourse is better than the alternative.

A Viagra patch over the ego?

Oh, Oscar Wilde, eat your heart out!

Does a Viagra patch segment your reactions? Or does it react to your segments?

I’m lost. <–(straight line for more rapier wit.)

(The question is: rapier than what?)

JH,

There seems to be a miscommunication going on here. That isn’t too surprising, given your exchanges with others.

  1. traditionally pompously? No ne has been pompous here. You state as fact what is only your opinion.
  2. prejudicially delude? I’ll assume you meant to use the word conclude.
  3. “sacred” society? There is nothing sacred about anything in ILP Again, more opinion stated as fact.
  4. than for even reactively segmented??? Not a clue.

In short, if you wish to communicate with others, it would be useful to use a language form known to all, and forgo the use of privately constructed words that have no meaning in normal discourse.

The rest of your post is pure opinion stated as fact. I’ll accept the statement that you are sharp and clever, but it would go over much better if you began to show it.

Translation: “I get what you clearly state and it bothers me to have taken part in it, so much so that I prefer not to admit it.”

:sunglasses:

Hello shinton,

I can’t imagine that you’re unaware of the concept of perfection from a theistic standpoint. I think what you actually mean is, decay and order is perfection from the standpoint of a cetain belief system containing a certain set of presuppositions, with which shinton concurs.

And given a motivation fueled primarily by personal gain, a consensus would agree that “perfectly” in the mind of the builder is an evil. Or would it be acceptable to impose imperfection for personal gain? This could go on forever if we keep adding new wrinkles, but the original point holds true–perfection applies to the house insofar as it fulfills its designed purpose.

Granted. And when the house burns down and kills some people, you’ll have considerable time to ponder in your prison cell all the possible lines of reasoning re the “perfection” of your thinking.

Yes, I understood your point. It just seems to me not to be one of your stronger arguments. Common sense has to take over at some point, I think, and rule the day.

Right. Frankly, the reason I find it hard to respect this kind of reasoning is that it so so quickly departs prudence and common sense. Intellectual exercise–considering badness as consisting in a perfection in and of itself, for example–makes for some interesting gymnastics for the mind, but at the end of the day it’s pretty well understood by most to have little, if any, relevance in the real world. It seems to me well established that the majority of both humanity’s sense experience and moral apprehensions are sufficiently accurate to use as objectively valid norms.

But the point all along has been that falsity permeates all experience to the extent that subjective invalidations are to be expected…any system is capable of contradiciton do to inherent falsity in the equation, but the leap from ability to contradict to actual disproval isn’t as applicable as its protagonists like to pretend. I understand your attempts to place moral apprehension in the realm of opinion, and acknowledge your right to hold this view. But as noted above, sophistic knot-tying, while it diverts the focus for a moment, is not able to undue common sense so easily.

Nonsense. The view isn’t based on Christianity, it’s based on a theistic view of the Bible. I believe it authenticates Christianity and arises from it in this respect, but see the principles as valid whether or not Christianity is true in the popular fundamentalist sense of it.

Depends on how one wishes to use reduction, doesn’t it? Understanding a complex system’s constituents doesn’t automatically invalidate the system.

This is an astonishing remark. Maybe I’m not understanding…are you saying the concept of culpability is illusory?

The interesting thing to me is that according to my understanding of evil as a property inherent in existence, its truth content predicts responses like this. “Compelling” in this context is a measureable force between absolute truth and our degree of unity with or resistance to it. Obviously, one of the first responses to this by those who disagree with the prinicples involved will be that I’ve only concocted a reality which fits my own beliefs, as re…

I wish the answers were all addressed and ‘boxed up’. Unfortunately, the participation of my mind with my own falsity denies this kind of assurance to me or any human. Because many of the relations I see as necessary to a satisfacorily true system are present in my view, I do feel some confidence in my beliefs. This confidence is often diagnosed in ways similar to those you noted here. Goes with the territory.

The notion of falsity also predicts that, the degree to which one’s beliefs (mine, yours or anyone else’s) are in unity with absolute truth, those beliefs will necessarily raise TR in the spirit/mind of others who have not yet been restored to a true state sufficient to “hear” those truths. This TR exhibits itself in a number of prescient ways. Christ was killed for this reason…He told His detractors truths He knew they hadn’t been cleansed to “hear” (Mat 23 et al). Their falsity produced rage and led to His Crucifixion.

Understood, shinton. Likewise, neither do I find the familiar attempts to push moral belief into the realm of opinion compelling. Nothing new under the sun there, is there bro?

No. I don’t “concur”. I’m not sure the concept of perfection is particularly useful at all. However, I don’t see why things that are “good” ought to be the only candidates for perfection.

You are ascribing a motive. I’m not. I’m simply saying if it was the goal of someone to build a house that fell down in five years, and it did not do it, then it would not be perfect. Perfection is a function of desired results.

Well, there are many reasons that I might want something to last only a given amount of time. Things are designed for a certain longevity. If I build house to stand 70 years and it makes it, great. If it doesn’t, it’s not perfect. What I’m saying is that there is more to perfection than simply “being a good house to hold people”. There are more variables involved, I’d think, than that particular view, and those variables when considered from other perspectives changes the idea of “perfection” often in contradictory ways.

Common sense, it seems, is not a trustworthy device on its own. I don’t think a boulder is alive in the sense that other things are, and I would say if someone asked that a boulder isn’t alive. However, what I mean is “it isn’t alive in a way I can recognize life”. That doesn’t preclude it from actually being alive. Your statement rests on the assertion that a boulder isn’t alive, but you are asserting something as universally true that you really don’t have any particular way to know. You call it “common sense” but it is really just an induction.

I think it departs from your personal prudence and common sense, but that which seems intuitively true is often misleading.

The majority? For whom do you speak when you say “the majority”? That’s a lot of ground to cover.

There’s no “knot tying” involved. Your “common sense” or “intuition” or what have you is not so urgently cogent as to be considered a given. If we want to get persnickety and assume that I actually AM “sophistically tying knots” then it is safe to assume that “sophistry” if that be what this is, has been around for quite some time and was, in fact, a majority force in the past. The ascension of Christianity hasn’t changed that, and because many people are now “predominately christians” doesn’t then make the sense any more “common”.

What’s the difference?

Until you can tell me how a theistic view of the Bible is different from Christianity, I’m not sure I can carry on this conversation.
[/quote]
Depends on how one wishes to use reduction, doesn’t it? Understanding a complex system’s constituents doesn’t automatically invalidate the system.
[/quote]
No, but it doesn’t get you any closer to understanding the system either, necessarily.

I am saying the labels of guilty and not guilty are too black and white to be of much use particularly as the law is incapable of making such distinctions to begin with. “Holding someone accountable” is not the same as that person “actually being accountable”, nor is it the same as “being right”. We assume in legal cases that somebody must have done something bad, (the aggressor) and somebody must have been the victim (the recipient of the aggression) but very often the situation is more complicated than these simple labels permit. Instead of hearing the case and considering it thoughtfully, people are busy considering what label they ought to apply. Very often it is the case that everyone was acting in accord with “What they considered to be right” and I think this is actually usually the case.

There is behavior that is clearly detrimental to others, and such behavior has to be stopped accordingly, but as the legal system thrives on people being completely innocent or completely guilty a safe bet is always to claim your innocence and maintain it and deny all accusations. Otherwise, you are “all bad” and at the mercy of the court. (despite whether or not you truly were “all bad”)

A belief that is consistent with the data isn’t all that shocking. Most of theology has been an attempt to be internally self consistent as it can then be interpreted with any physical data that arises. The fact that you say the above then, does not particularly surprise me. The ole, “I anticipated that through the application of my theory” remark is usually meant to ward off critics, but often it simply explains their criticisms away because they expected such. If I say the world is square and then I say, “But there are some out there who hate such beliefs, and they will certainly speak up against such a glorious claim!” there is little shock when people DO speak up about such an odd claim. It is not then proof positive of the theory in question, it was simply an anticipated objection.

I think your “confidence” here is simply due to “oversimplification”, but be that as it may, I’m sure except for the truly deluded that everyone entertains certain doubts about whatever it is they believe. Your system, though, if true, attempts to shove doubt out the window. Of course, the doubt will still be there in various shapes and forms, but it will FEEL like it has largely been eliminated anyway. Usually this persists until such time something unfortunate happens in a big way in someone’s life which questions those “absolutes” and someone is thrust into a situation where what they thought was absolutely true doesn’t seem to be holding well anymore.

There are several ways to earn people’s ire. Maybe telling them the “truth” is one of them, but another way is to simply be annoying. If you are a sufficient nuiscence, you often get dealt with harshly. I don’t think Christ was killed for his “truth content” so much as he was for being a political nuisance. I think that David Koresh was killed for much the same reason. I doubt that Waco was stormed because of his “truth”.

I’m not “pushing them” anywhere. You’ve placed them beyond opinion and I’m discussing with you as to why you think you’ve accomplished that. You’ve made the claim that things are absolute, and so I’m discussing that with you. If you feel like you are “being pushed” you are mistaken, for I don’t particularly care if you move or not. I believe everyone is entitled to their own ideas and it is the interaction between these ideas that allows people to grow. So far, what I have learned from you is that it is possible to claim an absolute morality in a way that works pretty well all things considering. I’ve also spotted some weaknesses in the view, and those are what I’m discussing in an effort to see how you’ve addressed them.

I was a bit disappointed to see the reliance on “common sense” as I tend to view that as a bit of a cop out. Typically, when I see this rationale, I know it’s time to move on as the conversation is about to stagnate. One thing that is apparent is that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes common sense–particularly those on a philosophy message board. When this one is invoked it is typically a way of saying “hey, I just believe this because I do.” and that’s well and good, but then there’s the extra little push of “and I think everyone does too who isn’t totally irrational”. The last bit, is of course, antithetical to conversation.

Hello shinton,

We seem to be rehashing the same stuff. I’ve only been reading philosophy for three years or so, but long enough to spot the same basic arguments. Still, there are a couple items we might expound on…

Despite your objections, it’s well known and accepted that there is a common sense side to both everyday life and conversations like these. I’ll use the ‘falling piano’ example to illustrate…

A realist and idealst are walking down the sidewalk together. Stopping at a busy street corner, both notice a shadow rapidly growing around them. They look up and see a piano falling from several stories up. What happens next is where the bullcrap is separated from reality, leaving common sense as the byproduct.

The realist, recognizing that things actually exist outside of him, quickly hurries out of harm’s way. We all know, of course, that the idealist doesn’t waste time pondering his idealism…he hauls his own arse out of harm’s way with at least equal fervor.

At the end of the day, having wrestled with all the twisty-turny arguments against common sense, if common sense were actually as nonexistent or futile a concept as you suggest, there’d be a lot more dead folks laying around.

By this I meant one can bring a monotheistic assumption to the Bible and enconter the principles which lie behind the notion of reality-as-data and its inherent properties of true and false in the Tanakh, beginning in Gensis. My point is that these principles not only hold up on into the NT but find fuller expression there. Thus, my agreement on the surface that the NT [and Christ with it] could logically be false according to the principles I use was simple assent to the fact that these principles are established in the Hebrew section of the Bible, prior to the NT.

Actually, unless you’re able to come up with something approaching valid, common sense arguments against what I contend for, shinton, I don’t see that our discussion has much of a future anyway. I see little sense in rehashing the same stuff out of the relativistic file cabinet.

Understood. This is an interesting notion now that I understand you. I’ve toyed with this idea myself, but see no easy solution to the problem as the reworking of the legal system to assign culpability some sort of ratio would be too cumbersome to develop to be practical.

Now we’re getting to the meat of the discussion. The fact is, the notion of falsity has inherently the type of predictive potential to show not merely that the assorted philosophies used against the mere idea of absolute truth have risen, but can predict practically to the letter the why of responses like yours. The tension and resistance produced by prescriptive truth wields tremendous power. One’s inner falsity [evil] makes it natural to want to retreat into various states of denial according to the “n” component in the formula TRn, from Clinton’s disavowal of the Monica thing to the furious hurling of almost any perceived detriment against the notion of moral responsibility.

The ‘oversimplification’ comment plays quite rationally into the overall picture, you know. I hear this pretty often as you might guess, and these accusations are inevitable and predictable responses incurred against the general notion of moral responsibility and absolute truth rather than against a specific belief system…which further supports the concept of prescriptive/spiritual/moral power as a causative agent itself in human behavior. I know you believe I’ve created a “system” intended to protect my delicate ego, but the reality is that the essentials to understanding the power of prescriptie truth have been established many centuries ago and follow a logical order. The pop phsychological construct you and many others build in response to spiritual principles established long before any of us existed, to be its own defense mechanism against the pressure of absolute truth.

You may argue that my system is only a copy of the common Christian paradigm, and you’re largely correct. But it’s a rearrangement of concepts modern and old which arrives at unorthodox conclusions (all humans are fragmentally regenerate and will be eventually saved) while able to maintain the integrity of the fundamental truths of Chrsitianity such as the power of prescriptive truth and its effect on humanity. It seems to me that your assesment of ‘oversimplification’ is itself oversimplified as a knee-jerk reaction to prescriptive pressure. The sophistic throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the pressure is, despite your contempt for the idea, a logical, inevitable consequence arising from the spiritual prinicples involved.

I applaud you manipulation of common psychological concepts, but to me psychology is only an explanation of the effect of spiritual causes.

I agree that truth is not the only path to ire. The fascinating thing to me is not that you automatically dismiss the notion that Christ was killed for spiritual reasons, but why you do so.

??? I don’t know where you get this idea. The ‘pushing’ I referred to was in reference to the sophistic application of antithesis. I find it both necessary and invigorating to have my beliefs called to question, but as stated above, once the standard arguments are learned–and more importantly one sees from whence they arise–certain arguments becomes a bit tiring.

On the subject of not finding my presentation compelling, if falsity existed in Jesus’ detractors to the extent that they observed His miracles and heard His teachings and still didn’t believe, the fact that folks today hear a corrupted version of His teachings (as is the case with any theological system) and still rail against its truth pretty well justifies Aristotle’s perception of the power of prescriptive truth as I see it. As Art and Paul sang, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” The power of falsity in existence explains quite rationally why we only hear what we want to hear, as I see it.

I’ll address this claim in a minute.

I don’t think the realist or the idealist take time to confirm their philosophical constructs here at all. I think what you are here defining as “common sense” is the desire to survive. The desire to survive doesn’t really in and of itself confirm the falsity or truth of a given situation. In fact, the desire to survive COULD WELL BE one of the biggest illusions of them all for we all surely die.

The desire to survive surely doesn’t confirm to us with absolute certainty that a boulder isn’t alive either. You seem to extrapolate from the concept of survival that we should THEREFORE take other things that are intuitively appealing and treat them as true–or as you put it–common sense.

Well, if you want to get technical there are MANY MORE dead people laying around than alive people. Does that indicate that “common sense” is actually futile?

Why would one bring a monotheistic assumption PRIOR to reading the Bible?

This may be true, actually. Your idea of common sense is so broad that virtually any concept could, if it were intuitive enough, be shoved into it. I’m not sure that we can discuss much further if that be true.

Assuming that is true, then it would also have to apply to itself. Is it possible that you deny that your absolute system is false? Are the mechanisms within your system such that they are actually “evil” and thus it makes you engage in denial? I suspect you would claim my arguments are false, but likewise, with your own system, I can make the same prediction about your response with the same underlying accusation. I can accuse you if I were so inclined of “retreating into denial”. This is why such an absolute system is weak in my opinion. Your only way out of this predicament is to invoke some sort of divine truth you hold of chocolatey goodness or something making your argument more “special” or true. Otherwise, your model cannot distinguish here between which position is good and which position is evil, thus the absoluteness that was its strength becomes its executioner.

It’s a double game being played here, and we are now at an impass. If nothing else, this very exchange between the two of us is evidence of why absolute systems fall apart. One person simply has to ASSUME they are the truth bearer without good reason to do so. It is equally possible the defense mechanism you speak of is yours, you see, and there is no way to decide which of us is speaking the truth unless we happen to invoke something “magical” to make us feel more “special”.

Or, perhaps it is the other way around. How would we know?

Yep. It’s looking like our conversation is drawing to a close. Nobody can argue with “spiritual causes”. It has about the same effect as arguing over “elephants with pinkish purple dots that are infinitely large”.

I do so because the story of Christ to me sounds like fiction intermixed with accurate history. It sounds like fiction because Christ raised the dead, claimed he was a diety, and performed “miracles”. David Koresh made the same claims but instead had his compound blown up by the government. If I wrote a story about it, people would discover there WAS a Waco and there WAS a David Koresh and people DID believe in him but not very many. It’s absolutely the same backdrop as Christianity, only it’s not two thousand years later. So, in the same way that I dismiss other notions as being fanciful and whimsy, I dimiss that Christ was killed for “spiritual reasons” whatever that may mean.

I’m not sure you see from “whence they arise” because to quote the Bible I think “though you have eyes you do not see”.

It does, and it works for all parties involved, even those that hold it.

It has been nice chatting with you about this topic, but it is now evident to me we’ve entered a phase wherein meaningful communication is coming to a close. I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my input, but I won’t personally be investing any further time on this particular topic with you.